Ravindra Gope v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.25659 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -42 Year- 2012 Thana -BIKRAM District- PATNA ====================================================== Ravindra Gope, son of Rajeshwar Gope @ Rajeshwar Yadav, resident of Village- Selhori, P.S.- Dulhin Bazar, District- Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Sri Ramakant Sharma Mr. Lakshmi Kant Sharma For the Opposite Party/s : Sri D.P. Tiwary ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 26-07-2017 Heard Sri Ramakant Sharma, learned senior counsel , assisted by Sri Lakshmi Kant Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri D.P. Tiwary, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

This is the 5th attempt for grant of bail on behalf of the petitioner. Lastly, on 17.08.2016 the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected considering the fact that trial was continuing.

In this case, by order dated 28.06.2017 a report was called for from the court below regarding the present status of the case, which has been received and kept at flag 'A'. The report suggests that till date twenty one (21) witnesses have already been examined and one another forensic expert is to be

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25659 of 2017 (4) dt.26-07-2017 2/2 examined. Sri Sharma , learned senior counsel for the petitioner by way of referring to the facts disclosed in the supplementary affidavit submits that earlier prosecution had cited only fifteen

(15) persons as witness in the charge- sheet however, recently a petition was filed for adding seven (7) more witnesses. He submits that this fact is evident from the order dated 10.6.2017 . However, from perusal of the earlier order also it is evident that there were fifteen (15) charge-sheeted witnesses and now the report dated 07.07.2017 suggests that till the date of report twenty one (21) witnesses have already been examined. Meaning thereby that on petition filed on behalf of the prosecution for adding witnesses order was passed and thereafter six(6) more witnesses have already been examined and only one witness is to be examined. In view of the fact that the case is at the fag end, there is no reason to review my earlier order. The prayer for bail again stands rejected with observation that the trial court may take appropriate step so that the case may come to its logical end without unnecessary delay.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) Praful/- U T